Contractor Allegedly Injured after Slipping on Black Ice Files Suit
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAlbert Jimenez, a contractor working in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania “has filed a civil action against the real estate group that owns the complex over claims that he became injured after slipping on black ice at the property” according to the Pennsylvania Record.
The defendant, The Council of Fairmont, is accused “of negligence for failing to identify the dangerous defect in the parking lot, in this case, the patch of black ice, and failing to correct the hazardous condition,” the Pennsylvania Record reports. “Jimenez seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, plus interest and litigation costs.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon & Rees Ranked #4 of Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation by Construction Executive Magazine
July 11, 2022 —
GRSM Construction Team - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been ranked as the No. 4 construction law firm in the nation by Construction Executive in the magazine’s 2022 ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™. As the only law firm with offices and attorneys in all 50 states, Gordon & Rees’ construction group (with over 150 construction lawyers) delivers maximum value to our clients by understanding their business and combining the resources of a full-service national firm with the local knowledge of a regional firm.
Led by Allen Estes and Angela Richie, the construction lawyers at Gordon & Rees are uniquely situated to serve our construction clients. We have attorneys with professional training and practical experience in related fields such as engineering and construction management, as well as lawyers with leadership experience in various construction industry related trade associations, legal advisory committees and government agencies. “If a client is looking for a legal partner in multiple states who understands their business, Gordon & Rees is that partner,” said Angela Richie.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
GRSM Construction Team, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Client Alert: Expert Testimony in Indemnity Action Not Limited to Opinions Presented in Underlying Matter
February 18, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh Pa. v. Tokio Marine and Nichido Fire Insurance Co. (filed 2/4/2015, B24899 and B247258), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held that the insurer of Costco Wholesale Corporation, in a subsequent indemnity action, could offer expert opinions which were not developed by the third-party plaintiff’s experts in an underlying dispute.
Jack Daer filed suit against Costco and Yokohama Tire Corporation, alleging a tire manufactured by Yokohama (and sold by Costco), was defective and caused an accident resulting in Mr. Daer’s injuries. The case proceeded through expert discovery and depositions. On the first day of trial, Costco settled with Daer for $5.5 million, and Yokohama settled for $1.1 million.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com, Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Incorporation by Reference in Your Design Services Contract– What Does this Mean, and Are You at Risk? (Law Note)
June 19, 2023 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaHas an Owner ever asked you to sign his contract before you started work on a new design project? Rhetorical question– this happens all the time, right? Especially in commercial work, developers or owners typically are not happy to simply agree to your Proposal for Services, but instead want you to sign *their* contract.
There are some risks with that you should be aware of — one of which is the seemingly arcane and legalistic language that reads something like this:
“The Developer’s contract with Owner is hereby incorporated by reference.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale LiggettMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Punitive Damages In Most Wrongful Death Actions
June 05, 2023 —
John Hackett & Jarred Reed - Lewis BrisboisMadison County, Ill. (May 19, 2023) – On May 18, 2023, the Illinois legislature passed House Bill 0219, amending the Illinois Wrongful Death Act to allow for the recovery of punitive damages in wrongful death actions. The bill will soon be sent to the Governor’s desk for signature. If signed into law, the statutory change will allow heirs of decedents to recover punitive damages in wrongful death actions.
The proposed amendment to the Illinois Wrongful Death Act is underlined below:
Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages including punitive damages when applicable, in respect thereof, then and in every such case the person who or company or corporation which would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, including punitive damages when applicable, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony. Nothing in this Section affects the applicability of Section 2-1115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 2-102 or 2-213 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. Punitive damages are not available in action for healing art malpractice or legal practice or in an action against the State or unit of local government or an employee of a unit of local government in his or her official capacity. The changes made to this Section by this amendatory Act of the 103rd general Assembly apply to actions filed on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Hackett, Lewis Brisbois and
Jarred Reed, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Hackett may be contacted at John.Hackett@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Reed may be contacted at Jarred.Reed@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers
February 24, 2020 —
Traub LiebermanIn New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2019 WL 6109144 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 18, 2019), New Jersey Transit (“NJT”) defeated the claim of several of its insurers that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to its Superstorm Sandy damages and recovered the full $400 million limits of its property insurance tower. The decision is a big win for the beleaguered transit agency, and for insurance professionals working with complex insurance towers, the decision highlights critical underwriting issues that can dramatically affect the amount of risk transferred by the policyholder or assumed by the insurer.
In NJ Transit, NJT secured a multi-layered property insurance program providing $400 million in all-risk coverage. The first and second layers provided $50 million each, the third and fourth layers provided $175 million and $125 million, respectively, with several insurers issuing quota shares in each layer. The program contained a $100 million flood sublimit, and “flood” was defined to include a “surge” of water. The program did not contain a sublimit for damage caused by a “named windstorm,” which was defined to include “storm surge” associated with a named storm. After NJT made its Superstorm-Sandy claim, some of the third- and fourth-layer insurers advised NJT that the $100 million flood sublimit applied to bar coverage under their policies. NJT sued these excess insurers and won at the trial and appellate levels.
In holding that the $100 million flood sublimit did not apply, the court applied the rule of construction that the specific definition of “named windstorm,” which included the terms “storm surge” and “wind driven water,” controlled over the policies’ more general definition of “flood.” In ascertaining the parties’ intent, the court noted that the omission of the term “storm surge” in the definition of “flood” evidenced an intention that the flood sublimit would not apply to storm surges. Based on this finding, the court rejected several arguments made by the insurers that other policy provisions evidenced the parties’ intent to apply the flood sublimit to all flood-related losses, regardless of whether the loss was caused by a storm surge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
PFAS: From Happy Mistake to Ubiquity to Toxic Liability (But is there coverage?)
March 14, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Andrews KurthIn 1938, a DuPont chemist’s experiment yielded not—as he first thought—a lumpen, waxy mistake, but a new chemical with remarkable properties: heat-resistance, chemical stability, and low surface friction. Decades of continuing experimentation yielded a class of chemicals with the capacity to make non-stick, water-resistant coatings. In time, these chemicals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), would become a major component in thousands of consumer goods: food packaging, non-stick cookware, waterproof clothing, paint, stain-resistant carpets and furniture, and firefighting foams. The discovery of the toxicity of these remarkable chemicals lagged behind the widespread adoption, but eventually yielded a moniker that reflected PFAS’s stability and longevity: “Forever Chemicals.”
In October 2021, the Biden administration announced
a plan to address, among other concerns, PFAS’s migration to drinking water sources. EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan debuted the plan in Raleigh, North Carolina alongside Governor Roy Cooper.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.
Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.
The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.
The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.
The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.
Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.
Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
